[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[amibroker] Re: Robustivity



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

Very relieved to hear that.

Highest Regards,

Phsst

--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Chuck Rademacher"
<chuck_rademacher@x> wrote:
> Sorry, after I sent it I realised that you might think I was talking
about
> you.   I wasn't.   So, that means I must have been talking about someone
> else.
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Phsst [mailto:phsst@x...]
>   Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:37 AM
>   To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   Subject: [amibroker] Re: Robustivity
> 
> 
>   What's your meaning Chuck?
> 
>   Phsst
> 
> 
>   --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Chuck Rademacher"
>   <chuck_rademacher@x> wrote:
>   > hhmm.... interesting.   Same style of writing and same ISP as....
>   no, must
>   > be coincidence.
>   >   -----Original Message-----
>   >   From: Phsst [mailto:phsst@x...]
>   >   Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 1:55 AM
>   >   To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   >   Subject: [amibroker] Re: Robustivity
>   >
>   >
>   >   >A waterfall drop in this stock this last week and a lot of
>   >   divergences. Most systems will most likely fail! Take your 315
trading
>   >   days and see the results are any good. >
>   >
>   >   Joe,
>   >
>   >   Instead of anticipating why "most other systems" would have
failed on
>   >   NTES, why don't you tell us how your system picked up on this
great
>   >   opportunity. That might be a little more productive, don't you
think
>   >
>   >   Phsst
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Joe"
<run_for_your_life2003@xxxx>
>   >   wrote:
>   >   > NTES is a good example to "test your system" to see how
robust your
>   >   > system really can function. A waterfall drop in this stock
this last
>   >   > week and a lot of divergences.
>   >   > Most systems will most likely fail! Take your 315 trading
days and
>   >   > see the results are any good.
>   >   >
>   >   > I just went "long" today on this stock...my system gave me a
"buy".
>   >   > I learnt to follow it regardless how much of a drop a stock can
>   drop.
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   >
>   >   > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Anthony Faragasso"
<ajf1111@xxxx>
>   >   > wrote:
>   >   > > Steve,
>   >   > >
>   >   > > Thanks for the "splaining"....
>   >   > >
>   >   > > Anthony
>   >   > >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   > >   From: CedarCreekTrading
>   >   > >   To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   >   > >   Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 12:09 PM
>   >   > >   Subject: Re: [amibroker] Robustivity
>   >   > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   am I missing something?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   Dave,
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   Sometimes it's tough to address issues and provide the
specifics
>   >   > that folks are seeking.  So, I will try to "splain" it better.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   If I am using the CMO5 with triggers of 34/-34, I would
go back
>   >   > and start a test to evaluate this system and triggers.  The
starting
>   >   > period would be whatever date you pick (1990, '97, 2000, etc.).
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   Next, I run the test over 315 trading days (this period
gives me
>   >   > results for approximately one year..it takes "x" amount of
>   periods to
>   >   > load the TRIX(21), which I use as a trend identifier.  My
approach
>   >   > produces about 10 to 15 round turn trades a year... in each
stock.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   I then rank all issues by one criteria:  percent return
per day
>   >   > (while the money is in the market).  If you only consider the
>   percent
>   >   > per day contributions, I think you will find that all other
"book
>   >   > learned" ratios come out just fine.  Numbers lie.  Would you
rather
>   >   > trade a $100 stock that returns $20 or a $20 stock that
returns $10?
>   >   > Percent per goes a long way to normalizing the comparisons.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   I pick the 20 best percent per day stocks and trade them
for the
>   >   > next quarter.  At the end of the quarter, I reevaluate the
>   percentage
>   >   > per day contributions and reshuffle the issues in play, if
>   necessary.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   Symtems don't go bad, stocks and commodities go bad. 
Going bad
>   >   > is best defined by a change in the pattern of supply and demand.
>   The
>   >   > cream rises to the top of the list.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   Is this optimizing?  Could be, by some definitions.  If
all the
>   >   > odds are even money, who would you prefer to bet on:  Chicago or
>   >   > Kansas City?  KC is undefeated and Chicago couldn't beat the
local
>   >   > high school.  My money is on KC.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   The stock betting setup is not handicapped (like almost all
>   >   > games).  This is basically a even money play (with
subtractions for
>   >   > commission and slippage...juice/vigorish).  If you have
9,000 issues
>   >   > to play, why won't someone want to bet on the strongest
performance?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   I know that the explanation might be over
simplified...but, the
>   >   > people who know me, in and out of this forum, know that this
is the
>   >   > way I do it.  I'm not crusading for anything.  This works.  I've
>   >   > presented this simplistic approach publicly to large groups
and in a
>   >   > number of internet seminars. It continues to crank out
extraordinary
>   >   > profits.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   Please let me know if the paragraphs help to explain the
>   ranking.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   Take care,
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   Steve
>   >   > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   ----- Original Message -----
>   >   > >     From: Dave Merrill
>   >   > >     To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   >   > >     Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 9:29 AM
>   >   > >     Subject: RE: [amibroker] Robustivity
>   >   > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > >     steve, thanks for your response.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >     from your msg subject and the way you presented this
system, I
>   >   > thought you were offering it as an example of one you had
>   objectively
>   >   > evaluated and determined to be robust. I was interested in
how you
>   >   > thought "robustivity" should be evaluated, since you seemed
to be
>   >   > contrasting your approach to walkforward optimization and the
>   various
>   >   > other system measures people were talking about.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >     what I'm hearing in your response below isn't what I would
>   >   > describe as a specific method for distinguishing accidentally
>   >   > gorgeous backtest results from robustness. you do mention
testing
>   >   > also at faster time frames, which isn't a technique that's been
>   >   > mentioned recently. but mostly, the robustness label here
seems to
>   >   > come from your integration of various aspects of your long
>   experience
>   >   > with it, like your visual sense of how it behaves. am I missing
>   >   > something?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >     another question: you mention issue selection, the idea of
>   >   > looking for stocks you think will trade well with a particular
>   >   > indicator, rather than the other way around. how do you do
that? by
>   >   > measuring raw past growth trading that indicator? other
measures?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >     thanks again,
>   >   > >
>   >   > >     dave
>   >   > >       just for my understanding, in what sense is this
>   >   > system "robust"?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       Well, first, this was presented to the public in the
late
>   >   > 90's, at a series of seminars that I conducted for Equis.  Same
>   >   > indicator, same triggers, same everything.  This robust
"thing" is a
>   >   > tough one to define.  I'll try to explain what's important
to me,
>   >   > but, it's very subjective and just one person's opinion.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       is it because results are similar with different similar
>   >   > periods and thresholds?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       If you take this CMO5 indicator and step down in time
>   (5, 10,
>   >   > 60 minutes), you need to widen the triggers to obtain decent
>   >   > results.  Other than that, it trades through time-zones with
very
>   >   > good results.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       that seems unlikely, since there isn't very far to
go from 5
>   >   > to hit 1 and 0, which I'd guess are significantly different.
what
>   >   > sort of testing led you to decide on this period and
threshold, and
>   >   > this system for that matter?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       If you're referring to the CMO5...I first started
testing it
>   >   > six years ago.  I've tested and eyeballed every version of
CMO(x).
>   >   > I've created a few indicators that combines different
periods of the
>   >   > CMO.  For my money, for my style, this judge of momentum
trades more
>   >   > things, more accurately than any other indicator I am aware of.
>   As I
>   >   > have begged many times:  give me something better...I'll use it
>   >   > instead of this.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       is it robust because it works well on many stocks,
indexes
>   >   > and funds over a long period of time?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       Yes, it works well on many stocks and indexes.  I don't
>   trade
>   >   > funds, but, some fund managers, DTG members, use versions of
the CMO
>   >   > to aid their timing.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       because of the concepts behind the indicator itself?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       I process visually.  The math is beyond me.  My
bottom line
>   >   > has always been the same:  give me an indicator that is
smooth, yet
>   >   > sensitive to intermediate and major market turns.  After gawking
>   >   > hundreds of charts, everyday, for the last six years, I'm
amazed at
>   >   > how this indicator quantifies momentum.  I like versions of the
>   >   > Stochastic RSI and the Standard Error Oscillator, but dollar for
>   >   > dollar, the CMO does it for me.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       something else?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       I think there's a few other things to mention.  First of
>   all,
>   >   > the ETF's that I showed were chosen because they represent a
broad
>   >   > range of stocks and are popular trading instruments.  Do I
suggest
>   >   > trading these issues with this system?  No way.  The CMO5
trades a
>   >   > lot of other issues with better results than the ETF's.  I
always
>   >   > allow the issues "to pick themselves".  Trade the issues
that return
>   >   > the greatest percentages in a stable system.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       In it's stripped down version, as presented, the
CMO5 is an
>   >   > indicator that can return steady profits (see equity lines)
in it's
>   >   > rawest unoptimized form.  Is that robust?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       Robustness and optimizing/over-optimizing are
>   fascinating and
>   >   > misunderstood subjects.  Over the years, I've constantly
simplified
>   >   > my approaches.  I can improve on the results of the three
ETF's by
>   >   > simply "tweaking" the trigger levels.  But, will it walk forward
>   >   > better than the default triggers of 34/-34?  At least what I
>   >   > presented was out of sample.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       If an approach does a good job of identifying
movement of
>   >   > supply and demand, the approach should not be expected to work
>   on all
>   >   > issues.  To say a system needs to work on all  issues is total
>   >   > crap.   To say that a system sucks because it doesn't work
on XYZ is
>   >   > another large pile.  Build simple things and concentrate on
issue
>   >   > selection.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       Optimization leads to dark and spooky places. 
Ranking leads
>   >   > you down the yellow brick road.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       Take care,
>   >   > >
>   >   > >       Steve
>   >   > >
>   >   > >         steve, thanks for sharing this (again).
>   >   > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > >         just for my understanding, in what sense is this
>   >   > system "robust"?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >         is it because results are similar with different
similar
>   >   > periods and thresholds? that seems unlikely, since there
isn't very
>   >   > far to go from 5 to hit 1 and 0, which I'd guess are
significantly
>   >   > different. what sort of testing led you to decide on this
period and
>   >   > threshold, and this system for that matter?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >         is it robust because it works well on many stocks,
indexes
>   >   > and funds over a long period of time?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >         because of the concepts behind the indicator itself?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >         something else?
>   >   > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > >         I'm not disputing the system's value, which I haven't
>   >   > tested yet. I'm trying to understand what kind of process you go
>   >   > through to settle on a system and settings.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >         thanks,
>   >   > >
>   >   > >         dave
>   >   > >
>   >   > >           1.  This exact system was presented over a year
ago at
>   >   > this forum
>   >   > >           2.  The charts are OOS (since, it's been posted
publicly
>   >   > forever)
>   >   > >           3.  Rules are simple:  Buy the opening of the
next day
>   >   > when the CMO5 closes below -34 and sell when it triggers
above 34.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >           Works on most issues (raw).  Works better if:
>   >   > >
>   >   > >           a.  You take trades only with the trend
>   >   > >           b.  You protect yourself from large drawdowns (stop)
>   >   > >           c.  You conjure a profit target (limit)
>   >   > >           d.  You put in a time stop
>   >   > >
>   >   > >           This is the guts of an indicator and a logical
>   systematic
>   >   > approach.  Whistles and bells are optional (but, in my opinion
>   >   > necessary).  Again, if you start with a pig, the prom dress
doesn't
>   >   > make it look any better.  Don't hang ornaments on a twisted
>   Christmas
>   >   > tree.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > >     Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxx
>   >   > >     Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxx
>   >   > >     -----------------------------------------
>   >   > >     Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to:
>   >   > amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   >   > >     (Web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
>   >   > >     --------------------------------------------
>   >   > >     Check group FAQ at:
>   >   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
>   >   > >
>   >   > >     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
>   >   > Service.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>   >   > >               ADVERTISEMENT
>   >   > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxx
>   >   > >   Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxx
>   >   > >   -----------------------------------------
>   >   > >   Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to:
amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   >   > >   (Web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
>   >   > >   --------------------------------------------
>   >   > >   Check group FAQ at:
>   >   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>   >   > Service.
>   >   > >
>   >   > >
>   >   > >   ---
>   >   > >   Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>   >   > >   Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>   >   > >   Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date:
>   10/27/2003
>   >
>   >
>   >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>   >               ADVERTISEMENT
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >   Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxx
>   >   Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxx
>   >   -----------------------------------------
>   >   Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   >   (Web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
>   >   --------------------------------------------
>   >   Check group FAQ at:
>   > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
>   >
>   >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> 
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
> 
> 
>   Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxx
>   Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxx
>   -----------------------------------------
>   Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   (Web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
>   --------------------------------------------
>   Check group FAQ at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
> 
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xlw.sC/XP.FAA/3jkFAA/GHeqlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------
Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
(Web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
--------------------------------------------
Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/